The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 4, Ever leftwards movement

In his anti reactionary FAQ Scott argues that ever leftwards movement is not a bunch of conspiracies run by Harvard and the State Department, but rather a natural response to prosperity and power.  We are richer and safer, so can afford a little decadence, perhaps a lot of decadence.

This fails to explain the ever more drastic measures applied by the state to move us left, for example population replacement, and the ever more strident propaganda in school and on television.

This also predicts that no crisis shall ensue, that we will reach an equilibrium level of leftism appropriate for our level of prosperity and power, that there is a natural level of leftism, and this natural level has moved left because we are richer, have contraception, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, dominate all our enemies, etc.

But every other leftwards movement has become ever more extreme, moved leftwards ever faster, eventually resulting in crisis, usually a bloody and disastrous crisis.  The reason that leftists of anglosphere puritan origin rule the world is in large part because all the other left wing movements self destructed horribly, leaving Anglosphere leftists of puritan origin the last power standing.

Karl Marx predicted the second coming crisis of capitalism, in which capitalism would collapse, and the saints his followers take over.

I can confidently predict the collapse of leftism, but alas, not that the saints get to win. It sometimes happens that reactionaries take over after the crisis, and all is peace and order, but the more usual outcome is outside invaders take over, sometimes genocidally, or pirates and brigands take over, and slowly over centuries the brigands transition to being feudal lords.

A reactionary victory is possible.  Strange things are apt to happen as history approaches a left singularity.  White autogenocide is also possible, in which first all white heterosexual males are murdered, largely by each other, then all whites are murdered (Jews discovering to their great shock and surprise that they are white after all), all heterosexuals are murdered, and all males are murdered, then anyone insufficiently leftist is murdered, then the bar for being sufficiently leftist is raised, and raised again, until some of the remaining leftists wise up and murder everyone who is excessively leftist, thus ending the crisis.

If it winds up that bad, or any where near that bad, will not end in the second coming of Charles the Second.


49 Responses to “The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 4, Ever leftwards movement”

  1. […] James Donald: left shift […]

  2. […] Jim Donald, “The Anti-Anti Reactionary FAQ” (Series, Part 1, 2, 3, 4, Sluts, War and Democide, […]

  3. […] The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 4, Ever leftwards movement « Jim’s Blog […]

  4. Hidden Author says:

    But if the threat is real, then surely you’ve pondered what you would do? Which leads to my question…

    • jim says:

      I have more than one citizenship, an adequate number of passports, and my assets are diversified against the possibility of very grave financial crisis.

      • Hidden Author says:

        But if you get stopped at the border and are incarcerated, then you may be confronted with a demand to give or receive “a cock-meat sandwich.” Obviously compliance is no-good if you get killed anyways but if you calculate that you have a chance of living–perhaps 1 or 2%–wouldn’t a cynic like you take it? If not, why would a cynic be so adamant about the “no homo” principle?

        • jim says:

          If my theory is correct, then one can see a left singularity coming from far away, in which case, unlikely to be caught at the border.

          If caught, die. Not planning on being caught.

          • Hidden Author says:

            How much does increasing leftism have to increase before a person like yourself “sees” a left-wing singularity?

  5. Hidden Author says:

    You say that the left singularity could kill off white heterosexual males. If you became a prisoner because of it and a homosexual guard demanded “a cock-meat sandwich”, what probability of you living afterwards would there need to be for you to comply? 1%, 2%? Just curious?

    • jim says:

      A left singularity that killed off all or most white heterosexual males would be the second most singular in history, so it is not all that likely. But not impossible either.

  6. […] FAQ: ever-leftward movement. Related: The anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: freedom and […]

  7. VXXC says:

    O/T but I’m not sure where to put it.

    This is why I keep my distance from Christianity, including Catholics.

    Look at who’s filling the Church and despair!!

    Pastrix: Diesel Dyke Tatted Lutheran She-Demon Minister Bolz-Weber

    • jim says:

      Progressive Christianity – on topic for Apostolic Succession.

      Also, the left singularity – on topic for “Ever leftwards movement”

      Progressives take over every institution. And, having taken them over, move them ever leftwards. A tattooed lesbian slut is lefter than thou, hence holier than thou.

      Removing the sacrificial sacraments from ordination is one step on the road that ends up with the tattooed lesbian slut preacher … no it does not end up with the tattooed lesbian slut preacher, for she will in turn be out flanked by something even lefter.

      I say something rather than someone, because we already in uncanny valley and getting more uncanny every year.

    • Scharlach says:

      Four years and a seminary degree later, Bolz-Weber founded what today is casually called House. It’s a start-up of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with an “anti-excellence, pro-participation” policy.

      “Anti-excellence and pro-participation.” How did a reactionary not come up with that description of progressivism?

  8. […] But every other leftwards movement has become ever more extreme, moved leftwards ever faster, eventu… […]

  9. spandrell says:

    I always thought a bit of Chinese practicality into the white genepool could be a good thing. With luck you get worldly, thrifty yet creative and curious people. Worst case you get weak superstitious sophistic zealots. Oh well.

    • Alex J. says:

      You get some of both. The question is, who flourishes then?

    • Handle says:

      Or the Chinese could get Cathedralized. That’d be interesting to watch.

      • spandrell says:

        It is my opinion that East Asians in general lack the messianic holier-than-thou seeking drive. They might follow the Cathedral or something like it for political necessity, but the free suicidal Puritan volunteer thing is just not in their blood.

        • jim says:

          Great leap forward, hungry ghosts famine, Szechwan autogenocide under Chang Hsien-chong.

          They recently overdosed on holier than thou, so it is not popular any more, and will not be for another century or so.

          • spandrell says:

            All of those were top-down government policies.
            Chinese just don’t do spontaneous progressivism. Nobody sends their kids to teach math to the hill tribes.

          • spandrell says:

            If you think the Cultural Revolution wasn’t top-down you haven’t been paying attention.

            • jim says:

              How does the ruler rule? Why is he obeyed? Mao was able to rule because lefter than thou. “Serve the people”

              The cultural revolution was in substantial part a power struggle, in which Mao attempted to out left his opponents – in much the same way as he originally wound on top in the communist party.

          • spandrell says:

            I’m not saying the left singularity doesn’t apply to Asians. Hell Pol Pot run the mother of all leftist singularities. Power struggles are what they are, Chinese elites have been murdering each other for millennia. And Asians are *very* good at sucking up to the powerful.

            I’m saying that random civilians don’t go holier than thou on a regular basis. They don’t go vegetarian, they don’t send their daughters to teach math to hill tribes, and they don’t sympathize with criminals agains their victims.

            Of course some do, especially these days of progressive hegemony, but not at the rate of white societies.

            And Mao didn’t run by being holier-than-thou. He run by “kill the landowners”, and that’s always bound to be popular with a peasant population. The Cultural Revolution was a clever way of associating the landowners with his party enemies, which had become the new landowners.

            • jim says:

              I’m saying that random civilians don’t go holier than thou on a regular basis. They don’t go vegetarian, they don’t send their daughters to teach math to hill tribes, and they don’t sympathize with criminals agains their victims.

              Only twelve percent of asians believe their race hurts them on college applications, though quite obviously it does. They don’t want to think ill of the ruling religion. They don’t want to be conspicuously holier, do not want to stick out for their holiness, but they still want to be quite holy. They want to be moderately holier than the next guy.

              Jews are notorious for their chutzpah, so when they joined anglo progressivism, proceeded to be ten times as progressive and to scorn the anglos for insufficient progressivism. Asians join up in a less ostentatious and aggressive manner than Jews, but they join up.

              And Mao didn’t run by being holier-than-thou. He run by “kill the landowners”, and that’s always bound to be popular with a peasant population

              “Kill the landowners” is never popular with the peasant population because they correctly anticipate that it usually winds up as “kill the peasants” Collectivization is always imposed from above by urban elites. The peasant wants his land. He does not want to kill the landowners because he wants to be a landowner.

              Collectivization in China required the same bloody, extreme, and extraordinarily brutal measures as it did everywhere else, and despite willingness to use dreadful means, was less than entirely successful.

              If the peasant is a serf or tenant farmer, the landowner is usually kin, or like kin, like family. In Vietnam, the peasant was usually the illegitimate descendent of an aristocrat, and the landowner the legitimate descendent of that aristocrat. The peasant does not want to kill the landowner. He wants a fairer share of the family lands. When a bunch of armed outsiders come in promising to liberate him, he correctly anticipates they will steal his crops, then the family lands, that if outsiders confiscate the landowner’s stuff, the tenant will be next.

              Collectivization in China was brutal and savage war upon the peasants, just as it was everywhere else.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But if Asians don’t zealously volunteer for the Left, then how did the Left take power in many Asian nations in the first place?

    • rightsaidfred says:

      weak superstitious sophistic zealots.

      Seems to be who we’ve got crafting public policy at the moment.

  10. ritser says:

    Western Europe and the anglosphere may get taken out by the left singularity, but you forget latin america, eastern europe and east asia.

    Yes, none of these places have all that many children but the last 2 have large numbers of nuclear weapons and the first’s bigger countries(Mexico, Argentina, Chile) could probably build nuclear weaposn in the event of a disaster like an attempted autogenocide of say conservative whites in western nations.

    The cathedral in western nations maintains it’s power by control of the media and centralized bureaucracy. Losing 5-10 coastal cities to nuclear attacks plus say London and Brussels would at the very least damage the system to the point where if it survived any attempts at autogenocide would be limited to blue state america, scandanavia and Germany.

    • Thales says:

      “WWIII Erupts! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!”

      Tangentially, this is a point I’ve seen Repubs make to Dems: it’s in Dem’s best interest to keep nukes out of the hands of US-hating-crazies since the obvious targets will be Blue state high density population centers, thus ensuring GOP presidencies for a generation or two coupled with glass-parking-lot foreign policy, but to no avail — forget existential concerns, even political reasoning is suppressed by the balls-deep agitprop…

      • peppermint says:

        Funny, when Blues make suggestions to Reds, like that immigrants from countries that haven’t been exposed to enough feminism yet are natural Reds if only the Reds would stop being so xenophobic and help them to colonize, it is terrible advice, and the Blues count on the votes of their rivers of meatpuppets swarming in.

        The Reds give the Blues good advice, and they’re still racist and worse than Hitler for suggesting that terrorists should be prevented from exercising their equal right to nuclear weapons.

        Though really, I hope the real reason for all this NSA surveillance stuff is to prevent nuclear attacks, and I hope the NSA has enough actually capable people to do the job.

        • jim says:

          The NSA has a lot of really capable people. What they are really up to is, of course, hard to tell.

          • Handle says:

            It’s actually pretty simple and also not a secret. Most of what the NSA does is Signals Intelligence (Intercepting Communications for National Security), and Information Assurance (for the whole of government), and a thousand little officers that all support those larger efforts.

            There is some pure research, more applied research, and there is some ‘offensive’ capability development which is mostly focused on providing tools on critical attack vectors for the military or covert operations.

            You’re right, there are a ton of extremely capable people there, but also, many of them are quirky / aspergy and, after many years, they all develop what Luttwak calls ‘the bureaucratic mindset’.

            The vast majority of the Signals Intelligence focus is on classic Foreign Intelligence Collection. Most of the rest is Counter Terrorism, and there is also Counter-Proliferation, and Counter-Intelligence.

            NSA can also be requested to provide technical assistance to other government agencies within its wide area of competence (and only when reimbursable, and only to the extent of the legal authorities of the requesting agency). So, the FBI, for example, has some really extensive in-house cyberspace capabilities. But NSA has orders of magnitude more, so when FBI hits its limits, they sometimes are willing to spend the money to call in reinforcements.

            The NSA is actually a remarkably and obsessively fair, law-abiding, and rule-oriented agency, with almost no tolerance for politicized interpretations or deviations from regulation – and especially compared to the rest of government (like, ironically, the Department of Justice). But you can’t convince anyone of that when anything is kept confidential, let alone mostly top secret or eyes-only. So the attitude to any public concern is always, “Nothing we can do to calm it down. Oh well, just focus on doing your job well, this storm will pass in due time.”

            • jim says:

              The NSA is actually a remarkably and obsessively fair, law-abiding, and rule-oriented agency, with almost no tolerance for politicized interpretations or deviations from regulation


              How then did David Petraeus get busted for sleeping around? That sure looks like the NSA engaging in illegal spying to advantage one political faction within the US government and to disadvantage another political faction within the US government.

          • Red says:

            Not to forget the NSA data being used to purge the military. I’ve often wondered if Roberts sudden change on Obama care came from NSA blackmail.

          • B says:

            There are other agencies in USG aside from NSA with cyberwarfare capabilities, and others still which do not need them. For instance, a perfectly legal warrant could have been obtained to look through Petraeus’ or Roberts’ email by DoJ, and Google would have complied. Further, even assuming there was a group in the NSA focused on surveilling American politicians, of necessity it would have to be a small and highly compartmentalized program using only the most trusted personnel, not reflective of the agency as a whole.

            • jim says:

              But, as far as we know, no such warrant was ever issued. Indeed, what possible grounds would there to be an issue a warrant against them?

              If the number of people with the mission of spying on US citizens with names not much resembling Muhammed was small, unlikely they would have been tracking where Petraeus spent his nights.

          • B says:

            Grounds? In the USSR of the 1930s, people used to get shot and sent to prison perfectly legally on grounds of collaborating with the Papua New Guinean foreign intelligence service in plots aimed at diverting the great Siberian rivers into the sands of the Gobi desert. What I am saying is that if you have a judiciary body used to signing what is put in front of it and an executive organ enthusiastic about doing what needs to be done, you can do anything you want to legally and with full grounds.

            I suspect that most of the spying on Americans with names that don’t rhyme with Shmihad is 1) done locally, 2) done under the auspices of preventing right wing terrorism or apolitical crime, 3) automated. The remainder would be quite small, or at least manageable. When you chunk down the number of people in USG with the ability to launch a coup, it probably comes down to under 100, and Petraeus was definitely one of them both while in the military and as the head of the CIA. It would actually have been irresponsible not to read his private email and spy on him otherwise.

          • B says:

            The way I personally would do this would be to form as small and trusted group as possible out of people who formally weren’t even in the govt anymore but were private sector contractors, so that they could be disavowed if necessary, and so that they would not be overly tempted by their power and would stay crushable if push came to shove. Moldbug thinks that the NKVD played a similar role for FDR, but I doubt it.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          In the event of a small scale nuclear attack on the US, would the NSA get more or less funding, power, and prestige? There’d be an orgy of scapegoating for sure, and if we’re lucky the bigwigs fear that more than they covet the prizes the survivors of it would get.

          • Handle says:

            So, cynicism must have its reasonable limits too. No one is ever going to let any preventable attack happen in order to get a larger budget or more legal authority. People in National Security tend to be loyal-patriotic personality types who take their jobs seriously and to heart. You would never be able to get something like that done without the cooperation of a lot of these type of people, and you would never get that cooperation.

            So, if a small scale nuclear attack were to happen, it would be because our existing authorities, capabilities, management structures, and reporting processes were actually insufficient to stop it.

            There would be a study group, and they would ruthlessly research the issue and recommend reforms and report on the level of resources that would have been required to establish a system that would have been capable of preventing the attack. They would present that to the politicians, who would work their own magic on it, but still pretend to have enacted the group’s recommendations, and there’s really no telling what nonsense you’ll get out of that process.

            As often as not, Congress will just kill something else you care about in order to appear to have done something about the gap that was identified. This is even worse than ‘fighting the last war’. It’s taking your finger out of one old hole in the dike to put it in a newly discovered one.

            • jim says:

              No one is ever going to let any preventable attack happen in order to get a larger budget or more legal authority. People in National Security tend to be loyal-patriotic personality types who take their jobs seriously and to heart.

              Oh come on. I know some people in National Security. Cynics to the core. Perfect material for being double and triple agents. Not only do I not know whose side they are on, I don’t think they know either.

              Marines tend to be loyal patriotic personality types. National Security is a very different personality type. Obama’s mother and father were CIA, and his mother was both CIA and communist, which is absolutely typical. They were exactly the National Security type in personality, and Obama is exactly the National Security type in personality, though, of course, nowhere near bright enough for NSA.

          • Alrenous says:

            On 9/11, procedures were already in place to detect and shoot down rogue aircraft. For example, submitting flight plans.

            Handle, what you’ve said about the NSA is exactly what people like you always say about these institutions. I’m sorry but it’s almost worthless as evidence.

            Even if it wasn’t, there’s almost unlimited wiggle room within ‘National Security’ and ‘critical attack vectors.’ Studies on gender are always biased in a feminist direction, but it beggars my imagination to assume every such researcher is malicious.

          • B says:

            No one will consciously let a preventable attack happen on their watch. However, people will exercise Crimestop to avoid considering whether their organizational policy is increasing or decreasing the odds of a successful attack on their watch when it is increasing those odds. The guys and gals I met from the NSA were particularly good at Crimestop, because, well, they tended to be SWPL to the core and their jobs tended to keep them in that happy little bubble. I guess this guy’s interview shows things weren’t any different in the 1960s:

            This is of course because the NSA is a producer of information, not a consumer/actor. But even the actors/consumers are full of people who can reconcile running around Mosul and Baghdad killing Al Qaeda guys five years ago and training/arming those same guys or their allies now. Which, obviously, increases the odds of a successful attack on American soil down the road. But with Goodthink, you can explain to yourself that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, so what’s the problem, man?

  11. VXXC says:

    Perhaps DEC could go on a quest for the magic missing spheres? Lost by our Parents [Yep]. If we could only find the missing magic spheres, the secret of defense could be regained. Possibly even offense.

    I don’t think Spielberg will make the movie, however.

    If you don’t find the magic spheres, then your destined to be dominated by someone that didn’t throw them away. There’s no particular reason for them to cut a deal where they’re not completely on top.

    That’s what happens when you lose your spheres.

    Our problem is our fighting is done by the beguiled, acting without Tribunes. For our thinking is done by cowards. America was taken by guile, not force, not reason, not justice, but guile and treachery. The foe is physically craven, morally feral, personally vile. And yet the natural Tribunes of America fritter away their chance wishing for King FreddyGreat [or General Unicorn] to ride in and handle business, preserving the all important tenue and positions.

    This is not how it works. Ever. The last clause is dependent on an foe you respect – because he earned it. Finland was given a great deal by Stalin because he respected and feared the Finns, and Mannerheim. As did also Hitler. Spain was spared most of the ravages of Communism and completely but narrowly Nazism because of Franco – and the Spanish soldier.

    Neither was punished for WW2 – for one they acted in their national interest. For another they were feared [same as respect]. They were quite useful in the future – because they could handle themselves. Because they chose to.

    Handling yourself is a choice. So is being handled.

    A man not feared is not respected. He will have to earn it. A man who choses to be handled is not useful, nor can you trust him.

    And yes you have cards to play, strong ones. Nor do you have all that fearsome a foe. The foes situation would be that of the USSR if they only had Cossacks…and the Cossacks remembered the Holomor. They don’t have cossacks, they have the Yeoman and the Constable, neither one of which likes them. Or trusts them. And vice versa.

    • jim says:

      Your reference to “tribunes” is a reference to the Roman Republic, a reference to democracy. In the end, the tribunes were the voice of the gimmiedats, for example the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus, who undermined and overthrew the constitution of the Roman Republic. Sulpicius, with his force of freed slaves, drove the Senators out of the Senate. In the ensuing big battle between left and right, the left relied on freed slaves and the enemies of Rome for its forces.

      When the tribunes first appeared, they represented Roman army veterans. When Sulla finally cut them down to size, they represented slaves, people on welfare, and the enemies of Rome.

      We are outvoted by gimmiedats.

      And when we win the vote, as on affirmative action, the government ignores the vote, and takes action to increase the number of gimmiedats, and decrease the number of productive voters.

      A major objective of obamacare is to redistribute wealth to single women and illegal immigrants, thus increasing the supply of single women and illegal immigrants who can be relied upon to vote for more stuff like obamacare.

      So, have to end democracy.

      • VXXC says:

        You are very close.

        When the tribunes first appeared, they represented Roman army veterans.

        We would be rebuilding Res Republica from an 80 year lapse.

        We don’t have democracy. We haven’t since the New Deal.

        Yes the vote should be restricted, very closely.

        • jim says:

          eighty years?

          Direct election of Senators started a hundred years ago.

          We allowed women to vote ninety three years ago.

Leave a Reply